| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/428524 |
| Subject | Property |
| Court | Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| Decided On | Sep-11-1964 |
| Case Number | Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961 |
| Judge | Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ. |
| Reported in | AIR1965AP474 |
| Acts | Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103 |
| Appellant | Sambhu Yellareddy |
| Respondent | Laxmamma and ors. |
| Appellant Advocate | Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv. |
| Respondent Advocate | N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv. |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatesam, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. </p><p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $args = array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/428524/sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120](i) property - protected tenant - section 100 and order 41 rule 23 of code of civil procedure, 1908, hyderabad code of civil procedure and section 103 of hyderabad tenancy and agricultural act, 1950 - question of applicability of section 103 raised for consideration - section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under tenancy act - person who is not tenant under tenancy act cannot seek protection under section 103. (ii) jurisdiction - sections 52 and 54 of state recognition act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile hyderabad high court is binding on newly constituted andhra pradesh high court - under section 52 of act andhra pradesh high court to have same jurisdiction which hyderabad high court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of hyderabad high court.....Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatesam, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. </p><p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $args = array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/428524/sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatesam, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. </p><p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $args = array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/428524/sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]ordervenkatesam, j. this second appeal raises the following questions:-(1) the scope of s. 102 (e) of the hyderabad tenancy and agricultural lands act. sri narasimha iyengar relies on a decision of justice gopal rao ekbote in syed sharfuddin v. andrews, (1963) 1 andh wr (nrc) 9 (1), that in order to invoke s. 102 (e) a notification in the jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the city of hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.(2) the scope of ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the hyderabad tenancy and agricultural lands act. (3) the scope of ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the hyderabad.....Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatesam, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. </p><p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $args = array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/428524/sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]ORDERCode Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatesam, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. </p><p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $args = array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/428524/sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. ', (int) 1 => '<p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-', (int) 2 => '<p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 3 => '<p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.', (int) 4 => '<p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 5 => '<p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).', (int) 6 => '<p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.', (int) 7 => '<p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.', (int) 8 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Venkatesam, J.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatesam, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. </p><p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $args = array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/428524/sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. ', (int) 1 => '<p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-', (int) 2 => '<p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 3 => '<p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.', (int) 4 => '<p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 5 => '<p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).', (int) 6 => '<p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.', (int) 7 => '<p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.', (int) 8 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
This second appeal raises the following questions:-
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatesam, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. </p><p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $args = array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/428524/sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. ', (int) 1 => '<p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-', (int) 2 => '<p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 3 => '<p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.', (int) 4 => '<p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 5 => '<p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).', (int) 6 => '<p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.', (int) 7 => '<p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.', (int) 8 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatesam, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. </p><p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $args = array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/428524/sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. ', (int) 1 => '<p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-', (int) 2 => '<p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 3 => '<p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.', (int) 4 => '<p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 5 => '<p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).', (int) 6 => '<p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.', (int) 7 => '<p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.', (int) 8 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatesam, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. </p><p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $args = array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/428524/sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. ', (int) 1 => '<p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-', (int) 2 => '<p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 3 => '<p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.', (int) 4 => '<p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 5 => '<p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).', (int) 6 => '<p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.', (int) 7 => '<p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.', (int) 8 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatesam, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. </p><p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $args = array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/428524/sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. ', (int) 1 => '<p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-', (int) 2 => '<p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 3 => '<p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.', (int) 4 => '<p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 5 => '<p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).', (int) 6 => '<p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.', (int) 7 => '<p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.', (int) 8 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatesam, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. </p><p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $args = array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/428524/sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. ', (int) 1 => '<p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-', (int) 2 => '<p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 3 => '<p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.', (int) 4 => '<p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 5 => '<p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).', (int) 6 => '<p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.', (int) 7 => '<p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.', (int) 8 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatesam, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. </p><p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $args = array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/428524/sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. ', (int) 1 => '<p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-', (int) 2 => '<p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 3 => '<p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.', (int) 4 => '<p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 5 => '<p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).', (int) 6 => '<p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.', (int) 7 => '<p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.', (int) 8 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkatesam, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs Laxmamma and ors - Citation 428524 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '428524', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 100 - Order 41, Rule 23; States Reorganization Act, 1956 - Sections 52 and 54; Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Sections 103', 'appealno' => 'Second Appeal No. 268 of 1961', 'appellant' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Sambhu Yellareddy Vs. Laxmamma and ors.', 'casenote' => '(i) Property - protected tenant - Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Hyderabad Code of Civil Procedure and Section 103 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1950 - question of applicability of Section 103 raised for consideration - Section 103 can be invoked to protect rights which are acquired under Tenancy Act - person who is not tenant under Tenancy Act cannot seek protection under Section 103. (ii) Jurisdiction - Sections 52 and 54 of State Recognition Act, 1956 - whether decision of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court is binding on newly constituted Andhra Pradesh High Court - under Section 52 of Act Andhra Pradesh High Court to have same jurisdiction which Hyderabad High Court had at the time of reconstitution - held, decision of Hyderabad High Court binding on Andhra Pradesh High Court. - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'Y. Sivaramasastry, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'N. Narasimha Ayyangar, Adv.', 'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1964-09-11', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Satyanarayana Raju and ;Venkatesam, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. </p><p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-</p><p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.</p><p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. </p><p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).</p><p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.</p><p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.</p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1965AP474', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Laxmamma and ors.', 'sub' => 'Property', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $args = array( (int) 0 => '428524', (int) 1 => 'sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/428524/sambhu-yellareddy-vs-laxmamma-ors' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Venkatesam, J. ', (int) 1 => '<p>This second appeal raises the following questions:-', (int) 2 => '<p>(1) The scope of S. 102 (e) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 3 => '<p>Sri Narasimha Iyengar relies on a decision of Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote in Syed Sharfuddin v. Andrews, (1963) 1 Andh WR (NRC) 9 (1), that in order to invoke S. 102 (e) a notification in the Jarida, reserving any particular area for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development should be made, and that the notification of the municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad already made is not sufficient to exclude the operation of the said Act to agricultural lands situate within those limits.', (int) 4 => '<p>(2) The scope of Ss. 34 (1) (a) (iii) and 34 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ', (int) 5 => '<p>(3) The scope of Ss. 4 (3) and 7 of the Hyderabad Assami Shikmis Act (No. 1 of 1354 Fasli).', (int) 6 => '<p>Considering the importance of the questions raised, I think it desirable that they are disposed of by a Bench.', (int) 7 => '<p>(2) I may also add that Sri Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a contention that the respondents having contended before the Tribunals below that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act has no application at all, cannot be permitted to argue that the case falls under S. 34 (3) of that Act, at this stage. This plea, along with the other contentions may be raised before the Bench, before whom the appeal itself will be posted for disposal.', (int) 8 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 8include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109